D&D (2024) How many classes do you want to see this edition?

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I just want to remove the ridiculous 3e-style multiclassing and offer more classes to cover more concepts... but I know that's not where we're at.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

It's not that gish but x couldn't support an entire class, it's that "you slowly become a monster" is limiting. Especially if the transformation is limited to the four levels you get subclass features on.

I think the current "wizard but x" is fine, it just needs a lot more spell support and more going on than metamagic.

I do think that the 'play as a monster' theme could work as its own class though. The current sorcerer is pretty poor for it though as it has next to no subclass power budget.

You would just need a different base class with a smaller power budget, and then subclasses which take up a lot more of the theme and abilities. Could even work as a pure martial. Would be a good option for vampire and werewolf style PCs.

 

[Horwath]

I just want to remove the ridiculous 3e-style multiclassing and offer more classes to cover more concepts... but I know that's not where we're at.

more feat slots and more feats that imitate class features.

I.E.

practiced backstabber: requires level 4;
gain sneak attack +3d6, your max number of sneak attack dice can be 1/2 your level, round up. No ASI

Improved caster: requires level 4;
+1 int, wis or cha
gain +2 caster levels of chosen class, your caster level cannot be higher than your character level.

Extra attack: requires level 8, cannot have Extra attack feature.
You gain 2nd attack when you make Attack action. No ASI

Primal combat: requires level 4
+1 str or con
Gain rage of 4th level barbarian or increase your effective barbarian level by 4 for calculating rage.
You effective barbarian level cannot be higher than your character level.

Magic initiate: level 1 feat (buffed)
pick a spellcasting class,
learn 2 cantrips from that class,
learn 2 level one spells from that class,
gain 2 level one spell slots.

Lay on hands: requries level 4
+1 str, con or cha
gain lay on hands of 4th level paladin or increase your paladin level by 4 for LOH.
your effective paladin level cannot be higher than your character level

 

[Parmandur]

I just find metamagic thematically dry. Especially when combined with the small subclass power budget sorcerers have. It's essentially making a class out of a glorified feat.

OK, so you find it "dry", but it is the basisbfor the Class, and given the backwards compatibility mandate...that is not changing. In fact, the main adjustment I would expect is to lean into metamagic even more fully.

 

[Remathilis]

I do think that the 'play as a monster' theme could work as its own class though. The current sorcerer is pretty poor for it though as it has next to no subclass power budget.

You would just need a different base class with a smaller power budget, and then subclasses which take up a lot more of the theme and abilities. Could even work as a pure martial. Would be a good option for vampire and werewolf style PCs.

Absolutely. If 5e was keen on new base classes, I could see one. Unofficial classes like blood hunter already dip their toes in this. But I don't think the sorcerer is a good chassis for it. You might be able to grant some monstrous abilities (like draconic claws or angel wings) but the focus is on the magic and that's what needs fixing.

 

[tetrasodium]

I do think that the 'play as a monster' theme could work as its own class though. The current sorcerer is pretty poor for it though as it has next to no subclass power budget.

You would just need a different base class with a smaller power budget, and then subclasses which take up a lot more of the theme and abilities. Could even work as a pure martial. Would be a good option for vampire and werewolf style PCs.

I agree that full caster with basically all of the go to wizard spells is not a chassis that can support it but don't think that all of the mage group classes need the same full casting any more than we expect Fighter Barbarian & Monk (or Paladin) to have the same number of attacks

It's not that gish but x couldn't support an entire class, it's that "you slowly become a monster" is limiting. Especially if the transformation is limited to the four levels you get subclass features on.

I think the current "wizard but x" is fine, it just needs a lot more spell support and more going on than metamagic.

"Wizard but X" is not a wide enough niche for the same reason you say gish but X is too small. Look at the spells for sorcerer: fireball?:yup Web?:Yup slow?:Yup So on & so forth right down the list of top shelf spells. The sorcerer is limited in spell choices on theoretical level, but if you were to watch a sorc & wizard player at the table they are likely to have a very similar spell selection & offer no real differentiation unless a social situation breaks out.

With the bolded bit. At least one of the bard or ranger levels now has a subclass feature when it didn't before. Gish but x as a theme could make good use of that without needing to lean so hard on a theoretically limited selection of the wizard spell list by giving very different distribution of power budget. Fighter gets extra attack at 5 11 & 20 while Paladin gets smite aura or lay on hands features at 1 2 6 10 11 & 18 thanks to being a half caster. There's no reason a "gish but x" class would need to get all of their abilities in 4 early levels because a fractional caster sorc would have the power budget to do similar with meaty arcane gish features not laden with ribbons.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Absolutely. If 5e was keen on new base classes, I could see one. Unofficial classes like blood hunter already dip their toes in this. But I don't think the sorcerer is a good chassis for it. You might be able to grant some monstrous abilities (like draconic claws or angel wings) but the focus is on the magic and that's what needs fixing.

This is why I'm hoping for more base classes after the PHB in 5.75e. 5e leaves certain class and character concepts completely without support, and the low subclass power budget for most classes means that they don't function as those either.

It's why I love artificer so much. The base class I actually find pretty 'meh'. But the subclasses each change so much that it's like playing a different class. Shame WotC likes to pretend it doesn't exist as it's not in the PHB and so doesn't give it new subclasses.

 

[Minigiant]

That shows the gap between what we are talking about. I think the monstrous abilities should be at least as competent as college of swords bards/rangers/etc. draconic might get bite/claw/tail & even a EB type breath weapon with serious costs to their spell slots/progression that justifies it. The various other beastly gish but x-twist archetypes could have abilities fitting & themed to their bloodline. Like the moon druid, casting is the secondary role not primary.

If "gish but X" isn't big enough to support an entire class though doesn't that also make it pretty clear that "wizard but x" is likewise not big enough to support an entire class. At least gish but X isn't copying some other class.

A Gish would be a whole new class.

The Sorcerer should remain a primary spellcaster.

In my head D&D has room for 4 more weapons classes.

The Chosen
The Gish
The Scholar
The Warlord

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I think overall 15 or 16 classes should be the upper limit to how many base classes there are.

We're already at 13 with the Artificer, just the Psion and maybe 1 or 2 others would be enough.

 

[Remathilis]

I agree that full caster with basically all of the go to wizard spells is not a chassis that can support it but don't think that all of the mage group classes need the same full casting any more than we expect Fighter Barbarian & Monk (or Paladin) to have the same number of attacks

"Wizard but X" is not a wide enough niche for the same reason you say gish but X is too small. Look at the spells for sorcerer: fireball?:yup Web?:Yup slow?:Yup So on & so forth right down the list of top shelf spells. The sorcerer is limited in spell choices on theoretical level, but if you were to watch a sorc & wizard player at the table they are likely to have a very similar spell selection & offer no real differentiation unless a social situation breaks out.

With the bolded bit. At least one of the bard or ranger levels now has a subclass feature when it didn't before. Gish but x as a theme could make good use of that without needing to lean so hard on a theoretically limited selection of the wizard spell list by giving very different distribution of power budget. Fighter gets extra attack at 5 11 & 20 while Paladin gets smite aura or lay on hands features at 1 2 6 10 11 & 18 thanks to being a half caster. There's no reason a "gish but x" class would need to get all of their abilities in 4 early levels because a fractional caster sorc would have the power budget to do similar with meaty arcane gish features not laden with ribbons.

Well warlock already has a nonstandard caster progress, so the mage group already has a proud nail.

My issue is that I don't want the sorcerer to become a fighter/mage hybrid with a monster transformation subtheme. It needs a boost, but slapping medium armor and martial weapons isn't the fix I want. And if this is the design option they went with, I'd want EVERY current sorcerer subclass ported to the wizard ASAP. I don't feel the lunar or wild magic themes fit a fighter/mage class, nor them transforming into... Uh, I don't even know.

Basically, I want the sorcerer, not the magus.